Comments

Obama makes some good points-too bad that it will offend evangelicals. Why are certain old testament laws singled out to be followed and others are not? Are'nt divorce and pornography more of a threat than two homosexuals that want to form a monogamous union? Good for Obama for standing for his convictions. I am sure many Christians think the same way, but are scared to admit it because it goes against evangelical orthodoxy.

Obama's use of the OT is less than nuanced. I doubt he is willing to follow the implications of how he uses the text to their end. Or is he?

JoW, Obama may be standing for his convictions--an assertion I disagree with but I respect your opinion--but they are not predicated on Scripture.

As to your question regarding divorce and pornography, you are right that they are a threat to God's design and to His will for our lives. But you are wrong when you ask whether they are MORE of a threat than same-sex marriage. ALL fall short of the glory of God--myself included--it's not about how much more or less far we fall.

In NJ where same sex unions are legal. We now have homosexuality as a reasonable alternative lifestyle being taught in the public school systems as well as a course which includes anal sex and mutual masturbation. This is a very slippery slope..........
One I do not think most Christians are aware of how directly it will effect their own children.

OBama is picking and choosing scriptural texts out of context. God's word must be viewed as a whole. God never changes. His purposes are solidly in His mind from Gen 1:1 to the end of Revelation. When we pick and choose which verses of scripture we think are right, we can end up vulnerable to heresies and cults.
I don't agree with Obama's views which put more emphasis on our current feelings than on the truth of God as seen in the whole of scripture. Christian orthodoxy is what keeps us from drinking Kool-aid with Jim Jones.

Obama claims, "Folks haven't been reading their Bibles" and insists on using the New Testament as his own litmus test for Christianity. So let's go to the New Testament gospels, where Jesus upheld marriage as the union of one man and one woman (Matt 19:4-5) and where He said it would be better to be thrown into the sea with a millstone around one's neck than to cause a little child to sin. Based on these statements, I think it's fairly easy to conclude that Jesus would take issue with Christian politicans who support "civil unions" for homosexuals as well as the state-sanctioned murder of unborn children.

It's not so much Obama's position as the speed at which he seems to arrive at his decision that concern me. Personally, I'd willingly assent to civil unions granting homosexuals equal or greater rights than my fellow heterosexuals, since as Christians we needn't insist on being treated fairly and certainly not preferentially.

HOWEVER, a society's definition of marriage and household has a foundational consequences. The quandry is: how do I make room for (in this instance) homosexuals to exercise the influence they deserve, without making innocents in society pay the consequences for their choices? (an obvious case is gay adoptions)

You'd better take a very long, very sober look at it, anticipating as much of the justice and possible consequences as you can, before deciding. I'm really unsettled when someone is so quick to conclude the matter.

Andrea. Stop telling lies and spreading your hatred. Teaching about tolerance of diversity has nothing to do with sex education, and you know it. Shame on you.

2Chronicles 7:14 talks about "if MY PEOPLE, who are called by MY name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and TURN from their wicked wasy, THEN will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.............and reading "the rest of the story"...it goes on to say...(v19)"BUT, if you turn away and forsake the decrees and commands I have given you and g off to serve other gods.....the story goes on to say God will judge Israel (His people?)...and people will ask "why has the Lord done such a thing to this land? and the answer will be "bedause they have forsaken the Lord, the God of their fathers, ......that is why He brought all this disaster on them." I am 67 years old and grew up in a much different era...lots of changes...not all good; but not all bad, either. The thought occurred to me this morning that maybe we have a couple or three generations that do not KNOW what "wicked ways" are so they CAN turn from them. Because we choose to be "seeker friendlier" today, gave we lost the definitions of what is "wicked in the sight of the Lord?" If we are to practice Love as Christ, he accepted people where they were, but never "left them there"....at least I don't think He did? Will anyone love our neighbors enough to stand up and say so?

Mr. Obama's interpretation of the bible discloses that his apparent unfamiliarity with the entire thrust of its message.

Old Testament Laws reiterated by the Apostles in the New Testament do not fall into the same category as Old Testament Laws that have been superceded. As a lawmaker, Obama should be able to see at least that far. Since he can't there is no need to get into hairsplitting--he has flunked 101.

Obama is not really a Muslim or a Christian. He is first and foremost a politician--which means he will say whatever he thinks will garner the most votes. As Henry Clay said, "I'd rather be right than president."

George Williams

I am amazed at how suddenly Obama has become a christian but that is politicaly astute at this point but did NO one remember that the sermon on the mount is NOT in Romans, come on people wake up is our knowledge of the Bible no better than Obamas???

Here are a few other obscure barack abomination obscurities,.deut 23:17,.1 kin 14:24,.1 kin 15:22,..1 kin 22:44,.. Lev 18:21/23.And way to many More. I won't vote for any of these heretics, Republican or Democrat. I will spend the day in prayer God Forgive your defiled Believers and Church. As bad as some of our so called preachers,who can't remember,.I AM THE WAY THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE. NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME!!! I"M BELIEVING GOD!

JAMES 4:4
Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

I don't know what translation Mr. Obama is using, but I would refer him to The New American Standard specifically Matthew 4:17-19 that speak to not ablishing the Law of the Prophets. Regarding an obscure passage in Romans and reference to homosexuality, he might look closely at Second Peter 1:20 which speaks to no prophecy of Scripture being a matter of one's own interpretation. Regarding his general reference to the Sermon on the Mount which makes no reference to civil unions in even the greatest stretch of the imagination, perhaps he should look closer at Revelation 22:18-19 that speak to adding or taking away from the words of the book of prophecy.

Homosexuality is an abomination to God in the same manner as killing an unborn baby is murder. He also seems to overlook the fact that murder and what happens in war are not the same because the Hebrew words are different. His preacher should set him straight on that matter.

An obscure passage in Romans??? It's in the first chapter. With eloquent clarity, Paul condemns homosex as a challenge to God's created order. Sadly, this is a statement from deep ignorance. That said, Jesus neither supported nor condemned civil unions in the Sermon on the Mount or elsewhere. From a political standpoint, civil unions actually might be a reasonable compromise, if the Federal Marriage Amendment is passed and court decisions forcing a redefinition of marriage are overturned. But Obama doesn't support this, so his statements of opposition to gay marriage sound like pure politics. Nice guy, though.

Mr. Humphrey, bravo! Great post, sir!

I think the most relevant scripture for any christian candidate:

Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, 24since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.--Col 3:23-24

The President's job description is stated in the oath of office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I don't think the scriptures have much to do with the job description or the measurement of how well the job is being done. There's ways of amending the Constitution to adopt or reject similar principles from scripture. Am I missing something important here?

Senator Obama is still an immature Christian. He didn't realize that Jesus has power over all strongholds (sins) in mankind. This is why as a Christian, he couldn't kick his nicotine addiction. Now he wants government to support homosexual unions and agendas, but he doesn't want governments to pass laws to save unborn children. A mature Christian realizes that both homosexuality and aborting (murdering) unborn children are all sin. I pray for Senator Obama's maturity in Christ, and that he will become mighty in the things of God. To serve Him in spirit and in truth. In Jesus' name. Amen.

When one is asked how two (why two by the way) homosexuals living together minding their own business affects others have them read Andrea's post. Once a society legitimizes a particular lifestyle it will naturally find that lifestyle taught in the schools; laws will be passed to protect and advance that lifetstyle. Andrea's post confirm's that.

Andrea's post also confirms that those who hold a Biblical view of sin and have the courage to express that view will be mocked, ridiculed, and condemned, sometimes harshly as showned by Kristi's post.

What Andrea said was not hateful and it was not lies. While we should be tolerant of other people and their beliefs we should not be tolerant of evil being taught (especially to our children) as good; we should not be tolerant of government passing laws that stand in direct opposition to God's laws.

Abortion and homosexuality are sins, forgivable but sins nonetheless. This knowledge is being lost as biblical illiteracy spreads aided by a world that idolizes the pleasure of self. This knowledge is also being silenced through intimidation and cultural pressures. Such is the beginning of the mark of the beast.

Kevin McCullough, a Christian, has written an interesting article today on Obama's views about homosexuality.

"Obama has blindsided black clergy across America with the con-game that they should not worry about his views on homosexuality."

"For all the shell game that Obama was able to juggle in the run for President to date on the issue of his real, underlying views on the radical homosexual agenda - this week he removed all doubts.

In an alarmingly pointed written statement Obama signed his named to the personal promise of greater advance against the institution of marriage of any candidate to ever run for the highest office."

http://townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2008/03/02/obama_americas_first_gay_president?page=full&comments=true

Thank you for quoting Senator Barak Obama himself, and not what others purport him to have said. This is much more objective and refreshing, though one does not have to bow at the shrine of his opinion. At least we can have a civil and "Christian" attitude when confronted by these issues.

Senator Obama proves himself to be a thoughtful person and politician and handles himself and his critics with the kind of grace that we should covet for Biblical Christians.

As the old "saw" goes, disagree....Yes. Disagreeable.....NO! And I would add....Hateful....Never!

Jack Chapin

God has such a high view of marriage, between male and female, exclusively, that when He went about to describe the return(the Second Coming) of Christ, he inspired the writer to use such terms as calling Jesus, as groom, "The Lamb"(male), and the Church "The Bride"(female). (Rev 19:7ff., 21:2, 9, 22:17)

Excerpted from Al Mohler's article: "How to Undermine the Bible: A Trajectory Away From the Truth", as follow:

Dean Paul Zahl of the Cathedral Church of the Advent [Episcopal] in Birmingham, AL, sees right through these arguments(in favor of electing Bishop Vickie Gene Robinson). The election of the Episcopal church's openly homosexual bishop "demolishes the Good News of salvation." He continued: "It demolishes salvation because it asserts that what Scripture calls sin is not sin. When there is no sin, there is no judgment. Without judgment, there can be no repentance. Without repentance, there is no forgiveness. The Convention decision fashions a god who is oblivious to sin. It thus denies the redemption of the world to a whole category of persons."

Just food for thought!!!

Obama puts a very important question out there: can you be a Democrat and a Christian? For Republican Christians who might be dogmatic about their answer, they need to at least take a look behind his policies, to acknowledge that he seems to agree with commonly held biblical positions on the larger moral issues: one, abortions are tragic and should be limited. Two, he doesn't "believe in gay marriage".

So what Christian can't agree to that? The problem of course is his permissive stands for things that he clearly agrees are not the way it "ought to be"... That does seem at first glance to be duplicitous. However, there's many issues that Republican Christians have definite moral convictions about which they feel require a more permissive stand - not to legitimize the activity, but to honor people's freedom of choice and because enforcement of limits would be untenable or create more evils. For example: Prohibition. Or how about exploitation by the rich. No Christian can read Isaiah and not conclude this is a horrible evil, but Republican Christians would rather have freer markets that risk MORE exploitation than support laws that risk the evils of gov't exploitation.

We may think one set of biblical principles is more important for an elected official to fight for or against than another. But I think our rhetoric should at least acknowledge when a confessed Christian agrees with the moral stands of the majority in his faith.

As for Obama's exegesis, it leaves a lot to be desired... but as a pastor, i can't complain when someone tells the American public they don't know their Bibles and need to read it more.

Kevin McCullough, a Christian, has written an interesting article today on Obama's views about homosexuality.

"Obama has blindsided black clergy across America with the con-game that they should not worry about his views on homosexuality."

"For all the shell game that Obama was able to juggle in the run for President to date on the issue of his real, underlying views on the radical homosexual agenda - this week he removed all doubts.

In an alarmingly pointed written statement Obama signed his named to the personal promise of greater advance against the institution of marriage of any candidate to ever run for the highest office."

http://townhall.com/columnists/KevinMcCullough/2008/03/02/obama_americas_first_gay_president?page=full&comments=true

Obama may have a thoroughly biblical view of human sexuality. He says in another CT interview that sex is sacred and he laments how we've lost that in America, and he doesn't support gay marriage.

However, when he denigrates Paul by calling his condemnation of homosexuality in Romans, "obscure" - that betrays either a biblical naivety or a faulty hermeneutic or both. Paul's mention of homosexuality is not obscure. It's at the front end of a pivotal case he's building about moral depravity in a letter that many consider the be a centerpiece of Christian theology.

To mention food laws of the O.T. in the context of this debate is a straw man. No minimally instructed Christian applies the Bible in such a reckless way as to want to legislate the Jewish ceremonial law. When in the last 2000 years has even the most autocratic Christian community wanted to impose this on the larger population? Never. Most of us don't even honor that code ourselves - BECAUSE we don't read texts of the Bible in isolation from each other.

And that's my biggest problem with Obama's off handed comments about the Sermon on the Mount and Paul. He's encouraging us to see Scripture at war with itself, Paul at war with Jesus - which is a common tact of the secular left which doesn't hold up under examination. Yes, there are Bible difficulties. But Obama (while encouraging us to read our Bibles more) has given us the impression that it's a smorgasbord from which we pick and choose at random.

If Obama claims to take Jesus seriously, he ought to not just encourage us to read our Bibles more, but also to UNDERSTAND them better, which means bringing a serious effort to harmonize our understanding of the Old Testament and the Apostle's teaching, both of which Jesus endorsed. THEN we can ask what impact this ought to have on public policy and we might get to his support of civil unions. However, lets not cut Romans out of our Bibles to get there.

Stan:

Obama said "...the Sermon on the Mount is more central THAN an obscure passage in Romans".
(for the sake of clarity, I put "THAN" in bold)
Obama did not state that the Sermon on the Mount is to be read in Romans!

(I do not endorse Obama.Just wanted to kindly correct your mistake, Stan)
-----------------
Even Mr Huckabee, as good an alternative as he may seem to me as an evangelical christian, for what it´s worth, has said things I find somewhat strange, but as a european, maybe that is not so strange... ;-)

All-n-all, I think I had voted for him (MH) if I had had the possibility.

Obama is the most outspoken Christian candidate still in the race (sorry, Huckabee, time to throw in the towel). McCain holds many of the socially conservative positions evangelicals love so much, but he's anything but a religious man.

I'd rather have someone in the white house who prays every night, and wrestles with the issues, rather than toeing a party line.

Obama Cites Sermon on the Mount for his Support of Civil Unions
"If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans."

Based on this article, Obama is like many christian who state their understanding of the scriptures but do not know their Bible. The Sermon on the Mount is not focused on Civil Unions.

Also,when President Bush made comments about his faith many of Obama's supporter would share they do not like when a President wears his Faith on his sleeve. Maybe Obama should be held to their standard or is he just trying to be a politician trying to get votes.

I am pleased to see him at least express his personal faith openly. It allows the gospel of Christ to be spoken even if he did not intend to.

remove the plank in your own eye before trying to remove the splinter in your brothers.
'

What has diversity got to do with sex. Those who want to do whatever they want and not have to stop have now got society thinking diversity has something to do with sex. Diversity is racial, differences between female and male, cultural, whatever is different from one person to another. Sex is sex, a physical act even done by animals. To do it their way, homosexuals have convinced society that sex is a diversity. That's the problem nowadays, we aren't being taught the difference between morals and acceptance. Morals means sex can be called rape and acceptance means rape is sex. And why is sex beyond the biological aspect of resulting in pregnancy being taught in school anyway, keep that at home. Nobody especially schools should be teaching "their" view of sex to anybody's children but their own and I'm not even talking about perverted sex which the gov is going to be accepting soon enough because it's already next to be taught. All this loose sex is what the homosexuals want so they can do what they want freely. It has nothing to do with diversity. Its purely about sex, sex, sex.

Sires:
Much praise for the post by Daniel,Julie,Andrea, George,Stan, Kane,Alfred,Terry and Darlene.
Bad post to Kristi, she does not get it.
Obama use of the Sermon on the Mount(Matt. 5-7) shows he really has no idiea what he is talking about.
Makes him look stubid.
Harry.

Sooooo...the entire first chapter is "an obscure is an obscure passage in Romans"?! Romans has been the bedrock of all Christian theology for centuries.

"But I think that ... in the end I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington."

If "these decisions" refer to the taking of innocent life, then no amount of consultation will justify them. And "some bureaucrat in Washington" has more biblical support for saying no to abortion than all the woman's doctors, pastors and family members combined.

Mr. Obama says he has been reading his Bible and he particularly loves the sermon on the mount since it apparently, speaks to the issue of homosexuality more clearly than "an obscure passage in Romans."

Although I have read the "sermon" (and the book of Romans) a multiplicity of times I am still at a lost as to where is gives support and succour to practicing homosexuals, or where it gives aid and comfort to persons who consider abortion a viable option.

Maybe someone who knows can help Mr. Obama and me out.

Anna, in adding to your point;
I guess the next generation will be pleading for human & beast marriages as as diversity group too. We all know, beastiality is a sexual perversion as well. Another form of inordinate sex trying to pave its way in our society. An absolute spirit of Anti-Christ.

I pray for all the presidential candidates. We must also understand that Obama is not professing to be a preacher. God calls the preacher for us to hear. They are also responsible for RIGHTLY dividing the word of God.

I am glad Obama BELIEVES in Jesus, I just hope he really KNOWS him.

Julie's comment captures it right, as our Lord clearly used scripture (Genesis, chapters 1 and 2) to demonstrate that He introduced the covenant of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman (Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!) -- see Matt. 19:4-6, Mark 10:6-9.

The question I have is this: How can a man who's so intelligent and gifted make such wrong decisions on the clear teachings of scripture? Can anyone familiar with God's Word condone murdering children and perverting God's institution of marriage which He loves (Malachi 2:11)?

So, either Sen. Obama is ignorant of scripture or in willful rebellion against it. Which is worse?

Most Fundamentalists are completely unaware of the historical context of the bible. They are just told what to believe, mostly by people who prey on them and have no theological training. Every theologian agrees on the importance of reading and understanding the Bible in its historical and cultural context. When considered in this way, the life of Jesus and everyone in the old testament is unimaginable in modern times, though the teaching of Jesus are beneficial when understood in our time in history. I am a convinced Christian and I don't agree (call me conservative) with all of the fundamentalists that promote murder, polygamy, torture, incest, and idol worship. If you want to be a Fundamentalist and disregard the historicity of the Bible, then you agree with all that is in it and thus know that many sanctioned people of God in the Old Testament had several wives, had sex with their children, and killed their relatives (the poor kids that did not obey their parents). Oh wait, they probably don't agree with that. It is convenient to use the historical argument for that, but not for the issue of homosexuality. Please worship God and follow Jesus out of love and devotion, rather than what is convenient for you.
Jos76
www.jos76.wordpress.co

Harry,

Try reading Matthew 5-7 again. It's not hard to see where Obama is coming from here. I believe your hatred clouds your eyes. By the way, it's "stupid", not "stubid".

Joe

A fact that is overwhelmingly overlooked is that the Pentateuch was written specifically to the nation of Israel. While we can most definatley apply principles found therein to our lives as well as what we learn about the person of God, the specific applications are not readily applicable to the Christian. The law had two basic purposes: 1) To show all of mankind that we cannot live up to the law thus showing a need for our Savior Jesus
Christ and 2) To make the nation of Israel seperate and pure from all of the surrounding wicked nations.

The sermon on the mount was also addressed to (guess who) the nation of Israel. If one does not understand this, gross missaplication of the text WILL take place. The principles can be applied, but much is specific to Israel repenting as a nation. Romans 1 is specifically addressed to Christians and clearly condemns homosexuality. You can twist and malign till your heart is content - but that is the plain BIBLICAL truth.

One of the difficulties in Biblical interpretation, is that we all "pick and choose" which passages we are going to accept, and which passages we are going to reject. After all, do we really want to put those who aren't virgins when they marry to death (Deut 22:20-21), or put a rape victim to death (Deut 22:23-24), or force a rape victim to marry her attacker (Deut 22:28-29)?

No, we choose to ignore, dismiss, and overlook these passages because they offend our sensibilities and our sense of right and wrong.

We do, quite naturally, the same thing that Obama has done. We just aren't as open and honest about it as he is.

With 70% illegitimacy rates among African Americans you think the first serious black presidential candidate would have more to say about the importance of marriage then "let’s conflate it with something else entirely”.

He should be ashamed of himself for this thoughtless pander to a select few.

Some information on Mr. Obama's theology:

Obama’s lack of interest in learning the basics about salvation and the Lord informs me not only where he stands spiritually but how shallow his views on other issues will be.

Nearly 20 years after Obama says he accepted Christ as his Savior, according to a newspaper interview, he

· Doesn’t believe in eternal judgment. If eternal judgment didn't exist, there wouldn't have been a need for Christ's death on the cross to save us from our sins.

· Doesn’t know if he's going to heaven.

· Doesn’t believe Christ's words in John 14:6. He believes Muslims and other non-believers in Christ as the Son of God and Savior of the World will go to heaven.

· Has an ongoing discourse with himself which he calls prayer. Recently, he now says he "prays at night."

Either Obama wasn’t nurtured as a new believer properly by his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, or, more importantly, this lecturer on constitutional law didn’t seek more information from the Bible or at a Bible bookstore for Bible commentaries to understand what God's Word has to say. The Bible seems to be a sideline in his life, not his guide in knowing the Lord. Thus, Obama's erroneous defenses on issues like homosexual unions and abortion.

To make matters worse, Obama has challenged black pastors in various states to stop "exploiting" gay marriage as political divisiveness when in fact the black pastors should have been challenging him. Talk about audacity!

I came here from a link on the Thunderstruck site which deals with religion in the media, and was horrified at what I found.

It's Christians like the majority of people on this board who make me ashamed to identify myself as one sometimes. You think the world looks at comments like these and sees love? You think they see examples of a merciful God who loves them incredibly and wants them to love Him? They don't. You're heinous emissaries for Christ. Except for the first poster- (s)he had it right.

Barack Obama is being honest about the differences between the spiritual life and political life-- how a president must recognize that America is made up of a diversity of intellectual thought (which our founders, which Madison and Jefferson and Hamilton EMBRACED so as to not let one majority overshadow a helpless minority!! Read up on your American history!) The same issue occurred when JFK was running in the early sixties; as a Catholic, everyone was terrified he'd uphold the Vatican over American political interests and he promised that wouldn't happen.

Obama is acknowledging that a civil union is not MARRIAGE (which originated from God, not the government) but does grant many legal safeguards (fitting, since civil unions are a government ideal). There's a separation between church and state, between church matters and government matters, that people seem woefully ignorant of. I'm a college kid and I recognize it, for crying out loud. Civil unions are not marriage. They simple bestow on AMERICAN CITIZENS the same LEGAL RIGHTS that married straight Americans enjoy.

And abortion? An early pregnancy is not the same as a late-term or already born baby, and people have been fighting out when ensoulment begins for CENTURIES. So leave it up to the women who find themselves in that situation to decide what's right for them, and stay out of our wombs. Obama had it right on the money.

Also, as Tony Campolo pointed out on The Daily Show a few weeks ago-- it's the HETEROsexuals who are divorcing at the rate of 50%.

An American president is not just protecting the rights of CHRISTIANS- they have the wellbeing of the entire nation in mind, regardless of whether they agree with the evangelical party line. Try not to trample on other people's constitutionally protected rights while arguing for your religious views.

And p.s.? These beliefs don't make me any less of a Christian, because they stem from a belief in the inherent worth and dignity of all people, and the need to treat EVERYONE--different, religious, or not--with compassion and respect. And to remember that the U.S. is NOT a theocracy...it's home to different kinds of people and that's what makes us great.

Homosexuality is not an abomination before God. The Bible says nothing at all about "homosexuality." Why do people insist that it does?

There are a few verses where an antipathy towards same-sex sexual activity is clear...but that's not the same thing as "homosexuality." The scientific theory of "homosexual" wasn't invented back then. There were no homosexuals. There were men who wanted to be with men, in the Biblical sense of the word "be," but...that's not the same thing, as no one could envision a science model labeled "homosexual."

The context of those verses also makes that clear. Those "clobber" verses are about idolatry and the appearances of idolatry, and how that affects the identities of the Jewish tribes/New Testament Messiah Jews and their polytheistic neighbors. This isn't even controversial.

There are some 20th Century Bible interpretations that use the word "homosexual," but they are wrong to have done that. It's an obsolete science word that doesn't belong in the Bible, anymore than using "either" or "mixture of gasses" instead of air.

Homosexuality wasn't conceptualized until the 19th Century, and it's mostly an obsolete science theory used today by people of ill will towards their gay neighbors. Respectable people don't use that word anymore...just like respectable people don't use the word "Negro" anymore. (Latin for "black.")

It's just wrong to label a community of people with a label they have explicitly (given how consensus works) rejected, for any or no reason...though in these cases, for quite good reasons. Communities choose their own names and change them if they wish...not science and certainly not people of ill will towards them.

In any case, the argument against anti-gay rights activists were made by the Abolitionists, though they didn't know it at the time. If you against gay equality...you're for slavery. There is "Literal interpretation of the Bible," and then there is reading the Bible with the Golden Rule ever on your mind. They don't seem much compatible to me.

Proslavery activists said that God would smite the nation if slavery was abolished...and we had the Civil War...our worst war. So...were they right, or was that a disaster they themselves brought upon the nation because of their greed, fear and fearmongering, and biblioidolatry? Of their failure to imagine a radical interpretation of the Golden Rule?

Jim Crow activists promised that God would smite the nation if racial segregation was abolished...Anti-gay activists today are saying the exact same thing...do as we say, or God will smite the nation...the world. Why should anyone pay attention to this cheap, dangerous and sordid blackmail?

We do reap what we sow, and disrespecting your neighbor is a dangerous crop indeed. We simply have better crops to sow and tend than scapegoats.

If anti-gay activists want gay jobs, property and influence...tough. You do not claim that God want you to have it. You do not claim that God wants you as God's regent. You aren't God and you obviously don't deserve it. Anti-gay activists are nakedly and shamelessly greedy, just as conservative evangelicals (and too many others) were in the Jim Crow era. A little greed and envy might keep the economy humming, but there is such a thing as excess.

Just try to practice the Golden Rule, or at least think about it now and then. I never have seen it in any statement of beliefs in conservative Christian websites...why? (Of course, it could be observer error and bias.)

Your gay neighbor isn't just your neighbor who happens to be a "homosexual abomination" and in need of conforming to your expectations in every way, or else God, you and/or the state will smite him, he's...you.

You are gay, even if you haven't the slightest desire for a same sex relationship, because you need your neighbor who is gay. If you don't respect him, you don't really respect yourself, or anyone else...do you? And you hardly deserve to be respected either, do you?

To mix Old and New Testament authority is just wrong. To take even one small commandment from the OT as authority today binds us to all of the of the OT law (Gal 3:11).

The Galatians' sin was to bind circumcision, an OT law, which resulted in their fall from grace (Gal 5:2-4). Without recognizing this fact, the fact that Christians are severed from Christ by trying to find authority from the OT (ibid.), keeps the ill-informed from answering many of our opponents.

Hence, we do not believe that homosexuality is wrong because it is condemned in the OT (along with its dire punishment) but because it condemned in the New.

The Sermon on the Mount more central than an obscure passage in Romans? Mr. Obama, are you familiar with "ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works"? Calling a passage in Romans "obscure" leads one to assume that you do not believe that the entire Bible is the Word of God; just the parts that conveniently serve your cause. Unfortunately, I don't see how the Sermon on the Mount serves your cause either.

There is a lot of talk about what God means in His word, why don't we just look at it and do what it says. Murder is high on the list of don'ts, but we continue to kill babies before they are born, homosexuality is on the list too, but now we are looking to find ways to make it "ok" by making laws saying they can be married. We are teaching our children how to sin and that it is "ok". We then wonder why there seems to be no limits to what people will do, because there are no limits. How do we establish what is right or good, if we decide it becomes relative. If we go by the "Book" we have a guideline. The question is, how many of us want to go by the Book? You talk about LOVE. How is it we know how to love if we do not know God, He is where it came from in the first place. So the message is, if we don't like the rules then pay no attention to them. Make your own. If the whole of society went this way we would soon be in deep trouble. Oh maybe we are already.

I like the fact that Sen. Obama brings the bible into his discussion. I hope that it influences people to study it more. Obama is either on the right track (seeking after God's word) or saying what he can to try and get the Moderate Christan Vote.

He obviously has not studied the bible much as he is taking a few passages out of context to make some point about how to be tolerant of sin. Yes God is about Love and Love is very important to God. God has many other qualities, also. If Sen Obama was serious about studying the bible he would understand that it's message is that we are suppose to seek after him and that we need submission to Jesus to help wash away our sins.

Any other talk about following God and understanding the bible without first submitting to God and having Jesus wash away our sins is pointless. I think we all need to pray for Sen Obama that he will truley seek after God, submit to God and let the transformation of forgiveness work in his life.

Did Jesus condemn the woman caught in adultery (where was her cohort?). No, he asked the person with no sin to cast the first stone. Did Jesus condemn her for sinning? No he told her to go and sin no more. Jesus was not about condemnation - after all he consorted with prostitutes, tax collectors and various sinners. Obama is just pointing this out to us in his comments about the sermon on the mount.

Gregory P... you write well and seem to have a keen mind. I agree with you that homosexuality is not a biblical term, and that the behavior issue, (ie same sex relations) was the issue for bibilcal authors, not orientation and all the complex factors involved in that. However, Christians have never thought that same sex relations fit under God's
design for sexuality. That's what's not controversial.

So the question for Christians shouldn't be, "let's not support ANY sexual legislation from our gov't as we imagine a radical interpretation of the golden rule". That denies gov'ts place to procure justice and enforce penalties for immorality (Romans 13:1-7). The golden rule, radically applied to gov't is simply a recipe for anarchy! No one can read Scripture or the teachings of Jesus and think that he would have advocated for that.

No, the question should be "to what extent should Christians use their influence to advance their view of sexually moral behavior for society's good, vs. to what extent should they support freedom because their morals in a given area are too specific to our religion, or because enforcement would be impossible and counter productive.

There's legitimate debate about that.

One more thing: To equate the stance against gay rights with slavery is historically naive. The argument for slavery in America was built on race first, with Bible proof-texts thrown in recklessly. Slavery in the A.N.E. where the Bible was written was driven by economics, not race. A black man in the south usually COULD NOT legally be free, even if he had money to purchase it. The Bible knows nothing of this kind of slavery. If a man in Bible times wanted to, he could sell himself into slavery to pay a debt. Yes, he and his family could be bought and sold as property, but not because he himself was destined by race to this role, but because economics put him into that role. It wasn't irreversible - certianly not in Israel, where the slaves were all freed every 7 years.

But in America, is WAS irreversible. Because it was built on race before it was build on the Bible.

But you just can't find a race based argument in Scripture for one race to dominate the other! Quite the opposite, you find endless Jewish legislation about the proper treatment of foreigners. And the equality of all races and socio-economic groupings in the N.T. is a given: Col 3:11.

To think slavery is not compatible with these larger ideas is a natural conclusion. However, to see same sex relations as somehow compatible with the same Scripture is an unnatural conclusion.

Which is why the church has always taken a dim view of slavery AND homosexuality. Slavery had basically vanished from Christian Europe by the time the Imperialists discovered the African slave trade.

Also, it was mainly evangelicals in the North who beat the abolition drum - and in England before that in the 1820's.

You've created an unhistorical caricature to advance your picture of how this is going down: bible believing Christians are standing in the way of progress - as they always have. Not true.

I'am by no means a relgious person but I do belive in GOD and everything else in the Holy trinity !
BUT one thing i was taught long ago in grade school is That CHURCH and State are never to be combined !
Choosing a candidate because of his relgious belifes or background will put the wrong person in the white house !
This is How bush won over the bible belt the 2nd relection by making a stand against GAYs and Abortion TO win OHIO again the same state he destroyed economically but did nothing after elected about gay marriage or abortion only continued to destroy the Economy more ! Obama is weak and inexperienced and naive about internatinal diplomacy !VOTE smart people he is not right for the democratic nomination!

My head hurts now from all of this Fundie ranting. Could you at least spell properly? And all of that YELLING to emphasize the WORD isn't going get ANYONE to LISTEN to you. I'm truly frightened now. If this is the depth and breadth of American thought, we deserved Bush, and many more like him. *shudder* Obama is as straight-up as a politician can be (despite the obvious oxymoron)

Should I do it? Oh heck why not... sorry I missed church, I was out practicing witchcraft and becoming a lesbian *POOF* so mote it be: all closed-minded Fundamentalists will see their true nature the next time they look in a mirror... be afraid, be very, very afraid...

There are so many issues I would like to address here! But, since this whole discussion was brought about by the election and the campaigning for our new leader, I will address the importance in knowing what the Bible says about selecting a "leader." A leader in those days WAS the leader in the church, because the church WAS the law. Like it or not, our present-day law IS based on the Mosaic laws of the Bible found in the Ten Commandments. The whole idea about separation of church and state is a new, American ideal that started out as a good idea, to keep the elected government from telling people HOW to worship THE LORD, not to promote atheism. 1 Timothy 3:1 gives the desired characteristics of a "bishop" of the church, and lets the people know that they should select a pious person to be in charge. Early Israelites did not have the same type of government we have. In fact, it was only after they protested that they wanted a "man king" that the power of the law started to shift away from the church to a secular government. Some people may think this was a good thing, but it was not God's way, and he allowed His children the choice, even though he knew it would lead them away from Him. So, over 2,000 years later, here we are, in the exact mess that God saw we would be in, trying to decide how to select our own leaders. For the Christians who want to keep as much of God's law in our government, the same characteristics cited in 1 Timothy apply today. Also
Deuteronomy 17:15 states "Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother." This means you should vote for one who is like your brother--a believer, not a stranger or someone unlike yourself. If you are a devout believer, you would not choose someone who does not believe in the infallible Word of God; you would not choose someone who is unrepentant and flaunts their sins, calling themselves righteous; you would not choose someone who blatantly goes against God's laws. It is simple, really, then to realize that NONE of the remaining candidates are "our brothers."

To the last poster:
I agree with you in your post wholeheartedly. However, your post leaves one serious question unanswered: If "NONE of the remaining candidates are 'our brothers'," then what is the devout believer to do? How should (s)he vote?

friend Obama reveals that he has little "real" knowledge and understanding of scripture or christianity. Many celebs and politicos only drag out their "faith" card when it beneficial to them. Question: did he actually say, or use the word ROMANS and OBSCURE in the same breath?????????

Sometimes I read blogs and feel pain.The world is not for Christians but for men.If we Christians(I am a Pentecostal Ordained Minister)want the world to be Christian we should Preach, teach and model the christian life.The Homosexuals are there because the Church in a way failed.How many of the Christians are neglecting their children?How many are sowing wild oats and pregnating women,How many would attend a bible study or prayer meeting.Or go for a soul-winning weekend.I consider it hypocritical when someone opposes abortion only when it is so and so, but when it is your sweet daughter, or your mistress it looks ok. What about racism it is deep in many, What about greed and exploitation, Hatred and anger. We se people killing each other, killing spouses,children, etc.What are we doing.Or are these not as bad.If Obama is not a Christian he cannot for political convinience be one. We must live the Bible and be concerned about evangelizing the world and discipling the believers.If people are straight, pro-life and not born again they are still sinners in need of a saviour.I would be glad if we set up rehab centres that would reclaim men and women for Jesus. Teach people about the sanctity of life not just here, but for eternity.They must be born again.

"...With 70% illegitimacy rates among African Americans..."

There are no "illegitimate" children in America. That's a concept from slavery times, when certain children couldn't inherit their father's estates and privileges because their mothers were enslaved.

And, in Jim Crow days, it was illegal for "mixed race" couples to marry in many states. It also could be quite dangerous to insist upon one's "legitimacy" if the father was "white" and the mother wasn't. But, Jim Crow is dead, right?

Not to mention that until quite recently, paternity couldn't be reliably established. Now, there are DNA tests.

The proper phrases, I think, would be "out of wedlock" or "to unwed mothers," or something similar.

How reliable is your figure, and what does it really mean if it is reliable? I don't know any black children born to unwed mothers, but personal experience is completely unreliable for this sort of statistical thing.

For Obama to refer to one verse as more obscure than the other or any verse to be obscure signifies his lack of understanding that all Scripture is God-breathed. Sounds like he should read his Bible more.

I think people are taking what Obama has said here, way out of context! He clearly expresses what he believes. As a christian, we learn through God's teachings that marriage is a unity between a man and a women. The bible makes this very clear. The bible also states that we must love one another. It is not are jobs to judge or discriminate others. Even though Obama's personal belief is that he disagrees with gay marriage, he is simply saying that same sex couples should have the right to visit each other in hospitals and to be able to transfer property to one another. This statement does not mean he approves of a same sex marriage union. He is simply not trying to discriminate and provide all with equal rights. WHAT IS SO WRONG WITH THAT???

I agree with the last poster about the word being inspired by God. I also believe that this country is great because it was founded by Christians upon Christian principles.
I also find it ironic that Obama would call the scripture verse in Romans obscure when he used scriptures from Leviticus and Deuteronomy to explain how Christians would be bad stewards.
Someone help me out here because I want to make sure I have this right. The penalty of sin is death, correct? That's why in Leviticus God commands the Israelites to kill an animal and offer it as a sin offering unto the Lord. That's also why the penalty for breaking certain laws was death. While the words of the Old Testament are still inspired by God things change when God offers Jesus Christ as a sacrifice to atone for the sins of mankind. Now animal sacrifices are no longer necessary because a believer, through Jesus Christ, can be pardoned of their sins. As in the case of the adulterous woman Jesus didn't stone her even though Old Testament law required. Unlike the pharisees he was righteous enough to pass judgment. Instead he told the woman to go and sin no more.
Is my reasoning correct? If so then Obama used scriptures from the Old Testament that do not apply to Christians, who live under the new covenant.

I think that being a Christian is an important quality in a leader. However, I don't think that this should be the single qualifying factor. President Carter had a reputation for being a Godly man. He also had a reputation for being a bad president.

Unfortunately, I think that Obama is the worst of both worlds. He's trying hard to sell himself as a Christian yet I'm not buying it. When it comes to politics he's more liberal than Senator Edward Kennedy.

This is my view on gay marriage.
And yes i am a child of God and his son is my Saviour.
As far as i can understand homosexuality is wrong as is other sins how ever if you look in Romans chapter 1 verses 24 through 27 you will see what Gods words say on this matter.
I beleieve every person has a right to free choice how ever twisted that choice may be.
and no matter what we are still to love them anyway not their sins they commit.
Romans chapter 1 verse 24 through 27---So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things there hearts desired.
As a result they did vile and degrading with each others bodies.
They traded the truth of God for a lie.So they worshipped the things God created instead of the creator himself.
That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires.
Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other, and the men instead of having normal relations burned with lust for other men.
So God abandoned them to do what they wanted and they will get the penalty they deserve.
That is not just including homosexuality it also includes all sin that man wants to commit and not expect repercussions for his willingness to disobey god.
I think gods people should take this to heart,all have fallen short and all are guilty.
i love homosexuals as well as all sinners i might not love the sins they committ so let us continue to pray for them no matter what sin they commit.

Actually, the Bible is pretty clear we should "judge not lest we be judged," and "do unto others..." ... both passages are from the Sermon on the Mount and are core Christian values. Clearly that was what Obama was referring to when he made his statement. I don't think he's asking anyone to condone homosexual behavior per se. He's simply advocating legal unions between same sex partners should carry the same benefits (and responsibilities) under the law as a heterosexual marriage. We grant criminals, cheaters and child abusers legal marriages. Does that mean we condone their behavior? From Obama's point of view, this is a human rights issue. He's not asking anyone to make a moral judgment about homosexual behavior. He's merely asking for equal rights for everyone under the law. From his point of view, this is in keeping with core Christian values as presented in the Sermon on the Mount.

P.S. – And to the person who thinks Obama was asserting the Sermon on the Mount appears in the book of Romans, you need to reread his statements. Again, when it comes to whether we should grant equal rights under the law to all people, Obama is suggesting core Christian values as presented in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew) basically trump the Bible's more explicit condemnation of homosexual behavior as presented in Romans.

I really have no regrets that I quit religion. So much fear mongering, groveling, irrationality and hatred. God must be petty, hateful and vengeful, like a supersize Saddam. I do not buy that.

Should we judge each prophet by the fruit he bears and by the fruit he supports? What kind of fruit has Snobama harvested by associating with Wright?

I am so glad to see the comments of those with no faith. They serve to remind me that God and the Devil constantly seek to influence men in their daily lives.

Can't you see that all of you here, Christians and Apostates alike are being deceived by a man who learned so much from Pastor Wright?

Common, Get Real!

1. Either you are anti-gay or pro-gay.
2. Either you are anti-abortion or pro-abortion.

You know the principle, there is no excuse: It's either Yes or No.. There rest is Devil's Lie, Just like the Serpent who deceived Eve.

Pray! You have talked to an emissary of the Devil in the 21st Century.

I will see this as it is...Obama is not speaking for God, but for the enemy himself.
If God allows this reprobate mind in the White House, then America better know that God's Judgment has come to America.
Eight years ago, the Evangelicals thought Bush was the one, a wonderful Christian to restore respect and dignity to the White house. I guess they forgot about Roosevelt, Kennedy and all the other presidents who sinned on a daily basis. They all failed in some way.
Now we are in a war that is taking many lives, in a recession, with an eye on Iran, the evil that seems to have no end, our country is in need of help, BUT only help that God can give.
Now here comes a worse evil...a man brazenly implying that Paul the apostle cannot be trusted and he Barack Hussein Obama must interpret what Jesus really means, that interpretaion being that God approves of homosexuality. Worse is his dismissing Paul as not as close to God as he Obama.
Obama has done his homework in one class. The class where he has learned how to depend on Bible ignorant Americans to elect him to office so he can help Iran bomb us.
Go read what God showed George Washington what is coming on America.
A vote for Obama is a vote for Iran.

Sarah Pulliam's piece was excellent. She comes from a distinguished newspaper family in Indiana and Arizona. Her great-grandfather, Eugene S. Pulliam, who founded Sigma Delta Chi journalism fraternity and published daily newspapers in Indianapolis,Phoenix, and elsewhere in the 1930s through 1960s, was known as "a itan publisher," as Sarah's father, Russ Pulliam, a great newspaperman in his own right, wrote in a memorable biography of Gene Pulliam, who hired me for my first newspaper writing job at The Arizona Republic in Phoenix in 1970. It is great to see Sarah Pulliam's byline in Christianity Today, my favorite magazine, and her continuing commitment to quality reporting and writing . She has picked up the torch from many Pulliam family members who had distinguished journalism backgrounds and made a real mark and contribution to our cherished history of press freedom in America.

he says he is a christian.i know many that do....we can judge a christian by his fruit....do you see any in this man....what is his testimony? he should be able to give us that if he is.......race has nothing to do with this election or anything about a man......his heaRT AND HIS WORDS SHOW HE IS DECEITFUL AND CAN NOT BE TRUSTED........he has muslm roots, his pastoe taught ot hate white men.......neither one of these shows any fruit for Christ......he says abortion is ok, divorce is ok and happens........satan told eve God didnt really mean you would die did he? then he says a wman has a right to her choice....what choice to kill, to murder? divorce is ok...since when? not from the beginning according to jesus....we as christians need to change our attiudes about his as well God will not be mocked.if we , and i include myself, and i repent publicly.......dont do everything in our power to help a marriage in trouble stay together or help councel and even help financially instead of abortion.we are no better than the 2 men that walked on the other side of the road when they saw the man beaten and left on the road......be the good samaritan !!!!!!!!! get involved and be a true witness.what do you think jesus would say to a woman having an affair on her husband..............you are forgiven if you repent and go and sin no more..or its ok, i forgive you now go do it again but this time dont get caught........ dont be fooled by this man.......he is what he has been taught.a christian isnt a christian unless he s born again.so obama, give us your testimony and lets see what fruit you have and how is God using you? havent seen or heard it...do you people think when satan comes or when we are tepted satan is telling you, its me satan? no, he lies and makes us believe its ok......its not!!!!!!!!! obie one if you win.............Lord help us........its not about race people or political party.its about the man.................now make a choice.hot or cold.......luke warm.............i know thats not hwere i want to ever be........i am a sinner too. believe in confessing my sins and i believe in repentance and being held accountable.......i also believe God forgives when we repent and make no excuses......HE WILL NOT BE MOCKED......SO GET INVOLVED IN PEOPLES LIVES STARTING WITH YOUR OWN...........HOLD ME ACCOUNTABLE TOO.I AM AS SINNER TOO...BUT I DONT EVER HAVE TO LIVE THERE........

well, so many comment! what I know is that God dislike evil things Bible talk about homosexuality.so please refer to GENESIS chapter 19 The Depravity 0f sodom.and sodom and Gomorrah destroyed. 1.And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;2And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.3And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.4But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:5And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

6And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,7And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.8Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.9And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.10But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.

11And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.12And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place:13For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it.14And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.15And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.

16And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the LORD being merciful unto him: and they brought him forth, and set him without the city.17And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed.18And Lot said unto them, Oh, not so, my LORD:19Behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast showed unto me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die:20Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one: Oh, let me escape thither, (is it not a little one?) and my soul shall live.

21And he said unto him, See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow this city, for the which thou hast spoken.22Haste thee, escape thither; for I cannot do anything till thou be come thither. Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.23The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.24Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;25And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

26But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.27And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the LORD:28And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.29And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in the which Lot dwelt.
I just want everyone to read which is taken from the bible.

Is there another way that homosexuals can have hospital visiting rights and "end of life" authority, without having to be recognized as in a civil union with their partners? To me, if we grant civil unions to homosexuals, it is license for legalized sexual activity between two consenting adults of the same sex. This is where I am concerned.

As for civil unions, and gay marriage, it has always been about anal sex, not gay love.

As for abortion, shame on all who believe in such an abomination.

As for his comment about reading the Bible, he is hardly qualified to even try and interpret scripture. As for what principles we keep and do not keep, murder (abortion), and homosexuality are FORBIDDEN IN BOTH TESTAMENTS.
919/278-8911

I will tell you what Obama lacks and why he will probably lose this election. Poor advice, lack of integrity, and pure ignorance. I am an Independent Conservative, and I believe that Obama should easily win, until he started showing his true colors.

P.S. thanks to all of the Disciples of Christ who are standing on His Word

Obama attacks the passage in Romans as obscure. Many have correctly stated that it is anything but obscure. What I have not noticed any one consider, is the fullness of what is stated in Romans Chapter 1. It gives very clear instruction as to what is behind homosexuality.

Romans 1:29 "Being filled with all unrighteousness..." When we recieve the gift of holy spirit from God the Bible tells us we are filled with the holy spirit. Here the reference "filled with" is directly relating to the devil spirit realm.

When someone contradicts the truth of the very nature of their own body they open the door to devil spirit possesion. They choose to run their own brains in contradiction to God and his very clear designs. Eventually they give themselves up to the influence and control of devil spirits. Gambling is another area where people allow their minds to get out of control easily. It is clearly documentable that every great culture that has allowed rampant homosexuality and rampant gambling has crumbled into the dust.

Further most Christians place the gospels in the new testament. However in truth they are the conclusion of the old testament. They are not directly written to the church in our present day. Romans - Thessolonians are the only books written directly to our day and time. Romans 15:4 clearly tells us, "Whatever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patients and comfort of the scriptures might have hope." The church of our current day and time started on the day of pentecost.

Christ came to fulfill the old testament law and free us from it, because we could not do it ourselves as the Bible declares that we are born guilty because of the blood sin guilt of Adam. While Christ was still here he was concluding the old testament law. Every jot and tittle of it. When that job was over, including presenting himself to God as our High Priest for sin after his resurection, He instructed the believers for a period of time and directed their minds and hearts to recieve the gift of holy spirit from God which would come shortly, and then he ascended to the Father.

On the day of pentecost according to the book of Acts the believers recieved the gift of holy spirit and the church of our day and time was born. This is the new testament, Jesus having concluded the old one. Read Galatians and pay special attention to what it says about the old testament law.

Obama said, "If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans." Obama has it backwards, the Sermon on the Mount is for his learning but the "obscure" passage in Romans is actually doctrine for his own day and time!

one thing that is wrong with obama is that he is falling in the way of the devil. he uses the bible ( the Word of God) out of context just like satan has done many times.
(fact he uses the i to much)

ISA 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

ISA 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

But isn't a bit ironic that Senator Obama, in one breath, points to the "radical" Sermon on the Mount as support for not using Scripture to guide public policy, but in another uses it to support what would be his policy on same-sex unions?

As believers and followers of God and our Lord Jesus Christ, if we really love Him and desire to glorify Him, then should we not hold dear those same principles that He Himself holds dear (as He has revealed in His Word)?

Obama will say ANYTHING that will tickle the ears to the person he is talking to.
Watch the video of him speaking the phrase about the sermon on the mount and you'll see, it was a belittling of the Bible--it was a de-establishing of it, a lowering of its credibility through mockery. Basically, he was slyly implying the sermon (and the rest of the Bible) has no place in the world today.

Christianity Today stooped to new lows by sugar-coating Obama's tactics and not defending the Word of God amongst a politician who will say anything to get what he wants. Just like he denounced his own pastor when the spotlight came to be on himself. I am so saddened that Christianity Today would rather choose a false peace over love.